Is a quarterback controversy a bad thing?

by kgaskin07 on Aug 14, 2011 3:28 PM CDT

The fact that the Longhorns have not identified a starting quarterback has led many people to speculate that the Horns have no clear leader at the position going into next season, and that this may spell trouble this year.

It is fair to assume that having a strong leader at the QB slot is a strong benefit during the offseason. A player like Oklahoma Sooners' Landry Jones is the unquestioned leader of his team, and does not need to senselessly worry about the safety of his starting position going into the 2011 season.

However, I'd like to argue that having four people still competing for the starting spot is not such a bad thing, and in fact, may be a good thing. As a result of this competition, all the way up until the Rice game, I feel the Longhorns will have four QBs with a strong grasp on the offense. This will strengthen the player that lands the back-up role for Texas. Think back to the BCS National Championship Game of 2009, when Texas fell short against Alabama after Colt McCoy was injured and taken out in the first offensive drive. Everyone must congratulate Garrett Gilbert for his valiant effort. While he made some blunders in the first half and finished the game with four picks, he calmed his nerves after half-time and put the Horns back in contention. But one must wonder, if he had been more prepared, could he have saved the game? Will this 4-man quarterback competition truly create better-prepared backup QBs that can enter a game with more poise when called upon?

Feel free to post your thoughts or comments. Additional info on this topic and other posts related to Longhorns football is posted here.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Two things

1) That website URL is the predecessor to BON, which I find hilarious.
2) Controversy is bad. Competition is good. Huge difference.

by GoHorns on Aug 14, 2011 3:45 PM CDT reply actions

I'm gonna have to say,

having a QB competition 3 weeks before the season starts is better than having a questionable leader at the helm. If the rest of the team has no confidence in GG (or any other QB, for that matter), things will start going downhill really fast. I remember seeing the pissed off looks in the defensive players eyes last year when they realized they already had to go back on the field after a GG INT or a 3-and-out. That’s one way to deflate a team REALLY fast.

by ElMariachiLoco on Aug 16, 2011 8:42 AM CDT reply actions

Agreed

I completely agree ElMariachi. I really felt that our defense was pretty good last year, and most here would probably agree.. yet statistically speaking, the numbers weren’t up to par for what we’ve come to expect. But I think a lot of that has to do with the offense going 3-and-out or turning it over before the defense even had a chance to catch their breath. The defense can only do so well when it’s out there on the field 60% of the game.

by kgaskin07 on Aug 16, 2011 7:08 PM CDT reply actions

What counts is realistic game experience

I doubt that having the QB competition go down to the wire before game 1 will make for a better back-up QB. What helps the back-up QB is getting significant and meaningful game experience, not merely coming in a few plays in the 4th quarter of a lopsided game and being told to just hand the ball off because we don’t want to run up the score. Two years ago Gilbert did not get alot of meaningful experience during the regular season, presumably because we were promoting Colt as a Heisman candidate who needed to pad his stats. Last year Little Brother McCoy didn’t get any meaningful experience because Mack didn’t want to injure Gilbert’s apparently fragile ego, and because Gilbert was doing so poorly, any half-decent play by the back-up would start a QB controversy, which Mack hates. . Hopefully, things will be different this year.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Aug 17, 2011 9:56 AM CDT reply actions